The end of freedom of expression online:

Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by Plus Ultra, Aug 20, 2017.

  1. AlifQadr

    AlifQadr Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2016
    Messages:
    819
    Likes Received:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Freedom of Speech is exactly that; the freedom to say whatever comes to mind, whether there is offense or no offense. The principle of Freedom of Speech is predicated on saying ‘that which is most unthinkable’ and not being persecuted by government or fellow citizenry because what has been said is ‘most unthinkable’. People confuse the principles of etiquette with legality, when it comes to freedom of speech. Granted in “polite” conversing, certain utterances may be considered most inappropriate, but “polite conversation”, in no manner dictates or should dictate the definition of Free Speech, in general and in particular. Imagine what this country would have been like had the Founders of this nation, included conversation etiquette when they presented their grievances to the King of England during the time of contemplate separation from the British Crown. Remember these words from Benjamin Franklin, “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”
     
  2. Starjet

    Starjet Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Another person claiming to advocate free speech while demanding another's be limited. I would quess you had a public education--taught ideas by the political power you vote in office. The most evil law in America? The anti-monopoly and anti-trust laws. They are the greatest threat to our freedoms, and is the biggest club used to shut up opposition to polices of the gang in power.

    Miss Ayn Rand: "The alleged purpose of the Antitrust laws was to protect competition; that purpose was based on the socialistic fallacy that a free, unregulated market will inevitably lead to the establishment of coercive monopolies. But, in fact, no coercive monopoly has ever been or ever can be established by means of free trade on a free market. Every coercive monopoly was created by government intervention into the economy: by special privileges, such as franchises or subsidies, which closed the entry of competitors into a given field, by legislative action. (For a full demonstration of this fact, I refer you to the works of the best economists.)--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/monopoly.html
     
  3. Starjet

    Starjet Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    When it comes to government control, free speech is a wild card and it does give me the right to say whatever I want no matter how vulgar and vile. The only restriction on free speech is the rights of others, specifically, their property rights. You are free to say whatever you wish in your house, in your paper, in your book, etc. However, the property rights of others protect them from having to listen to your bullshht. For example, you have every right to write a book advocating the slaughter of Muslims, the banning of their religion, the raping of their women, the murdering of their children, but nobody has to produce, buy, or sell your garbage. Property rights is the right that protects us from the tyrants and psychotics of the world. We don't need to suspend free speech to protect us from the offensive, we just need to think and act rationally.

    Miss Ayn Rand: "
    While people are clamoring about “economic rights,” the concept of political rights is vanishing. It is forgotten that the right of free speech means the freedom to advocate one’s views and to bear the possible consequences, including disagreement with others, opposition, unpopularity and lack of support. The political function of “the right of free speech” is to protect dissenters and unpopular minorities from forcible suppression—not to guarantee them the support, advantages and rewards of a popularity they have not gained.

    The Bill of Rights reads: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . . .” It does not demand that private citizens provide a microphone for the man who advocates their destruction, or a passkey for the burglar who seeks to rob them, or a knife for the murderer who wants to cut their throats."--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/free_speech.html
     
  4. Plus Ultra

    Plus Ultra Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2017
    Messages:
    1,223
    Likes Received:
    479
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The scale of Google's business and it's dominance in a sector so closely related to communication suggests to me a higher standard ought to apply to them than applies to some other business. It would bother me, as a Real Madrid fan if my barber banned criticism of it's historical rival, the Barcelona. Depending on how obnoxious he was, if I were not a fanatic for the 'Merengue' team, I would get my hair cut elsewhere. There are drinking establishments I've visited I won't go back to because of the offensive views of the barman. This is fine, not unusual with sports. In Britain I know of pubs that discriminate against Catholics, I wonder how it goes for heterosexuals in gay bars. These are small establishments catering to a particular clientele and I suppose lack of inclusiveness is part of their 'business model'.

    Google’s market share in desktop search engines in about 80%, for mobile devices this is around 95%. Google’s Android is the Operating System in nearly 90% of the world’s cell phones. Google’s share of internet advertising revenue is 40.7% in the US (Facebook’s is 19.7% and nobody else gets more than 5%). Google (actually “Alphabet”) is a very diverse conglomerate, they’re developing self-driving cars, drones, home security and climate control, venture capital investing, biotech, digital health services and a variety of other operations, last year they made $90.27 billion. When Google bans search returns (or demonetizes) content it deems offensive, there really isn’t much of an alternative. There is some alternative, but it seems insignificant.

    For those who dismiss concern claiming the market will decide overlook the lopsided situation in this market, it is hard to find an analogous situation, but imagine the electric company where you live decided not to provide electricity to people who had solar panels.
     
    AlifQadr likes this.
  5. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    26,124
    Likes Received:
    1,360
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I did not demand limits to freedom of speech ? Strawman.

    "Monopoly and anti trust laws are a threat to our freedom" ? This is patently absurd nonsense.

    You clearly know little about the economics of monopolism or the history of monopolies .. or history in general. The comments from Miss Rand are as stupid and ignorant as they come. You reverence to Rand as the "best economist" is pure nonsense. She is a paid shill for the Oligarchs. Elitist to the core.

    We have many Oligopolies (monopolies involving more than one company). These oligopolies have engaged in price fixing, collusion and various anti competitive practices.

    Every time some new regulation or tax law is being made the oligopoly is sitting at the table (and perhaps they have a right to be there). The problem is that the official that is supposed to be representing the little guy is either in the pocket of, or influenced by the Oligopoly. The oligopoly does not win every time but, over time, table after table, the rules of the game get skewed towards the Oligopoly to keep competition out.

    Big corporations have the ability to sell product at or even below cost to drive the little guys out of the market. Once they are gone prices rise. Walmart is famous for this but, it happens in many other industries.

    Numerous drug companies have been found guilty of price fixing.

    These massive mergers decrease competition. I worked in the chemical industry for decades. It used to be that the sector I was in had 8-10 competitors. There was competition for good salespeople and when you sold something you got paid well. Now there are 2 and they squeeze every penny out of the salesperson. If you don't like it ? too bad .. you only have one other company to go to and they do the same thing. This puts downward pressure on wages due to lack of labor competition.

    If that money goes to the salesperson it is spent in the local economy. Instead that money goes to some nameless faceless shareholder who may not even live in the country never mind spend in the local economy. In this way the cream is skimmed off the top.

    What's more .. is that the middle class is forced to pay the corporations share of the taxes.

    McDonalds needs roads, infrastructure, police and so on to operate. It used to be that the worker/corp share of the tax bill was split 50/50. Now it is 20/80.

    If you like being forced to pay McDonalds share of the tax bill you are welcome to this .. I sure a hell don't. At least if this was a private local company the extra profit would go back into the economy (although I would still have an issue but at least with some solace). Instead this money goes to some nameless faceless shareholder living who knows where.

    Quit reading unsupported claims by shills for the Oligarchs. Do you not realize how much money these folks spend to keep the masses ignorant ? How many false narratives are out there including the one's you have bought into. Unless you are a billionaire ... you are shooting yourself in the foot.

    I will finish with a bit of history. Extreme capitalism and extreme socialism (totalitarian communism) meet at the far end of the political spectrum. In both cases you get a few elite controlling all or most of the resources and means of production.

    It is simple math. You can not grow profits of corporations at rates well beyond inflation forever. Eventually you end up with a couple of companies owning everything. We are getting way to close to this. The international financiers own (Energy Oligopoly, Food Oligopoly, Banks, Finance, Insurance, Drugs) but also they own the media.

    It is the board of directors that has the power in a publicly traded company. These IF's sit on the boards of many companies at the same time and this is how control is exercised.
     
    Fred C Dobbs likes this.
  6. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    44,957
    Likes Received:
    2,325
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So if corportate taxes are paid for by the consumer - which I agree is true - then what good does it do to raise taxes on corporations?
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2017
  7. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    3,196
    Likes Received:
    1,769
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just curious. If HBO suddenly spun up a show about how cool slavery is, would you go after HBO?
     
  8. Starjet

    Starjet Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male

    If you support anti-monopoly and anti-trust laws your support the suppression of freedom of speech, and despise the rights of man. In other words, you are an evil cretin. If North Korea and South Korea can't convince you the evil of socialism and the goodness of capitalism, you aren't human any longer and must be ignored as the walking dead. Bye bye blood sucker.

    Miss Rand: The necessary precondition of a coercive monopoly is closed entry—the barring of all competing producers from a given field. This can be accomplished only by an act of government intervention, in the form of special regulations, subsidies, or franchises. Without government assistance, it is impossible for a would-be monopolist to set and maintain his prices and production policies independent of the rest of the economy. For if he attempted to set his prices and production at a level that would yield profits to new entrants significantly above those available in other fields, competitors would be sure to invade his industry."--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/monopoly.html
     
  9. Starjet

    Starjet Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Before I put you on ignore, just out of curiosity, are you 10 yet?
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2017
  10. Starjet

    Starjet Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male

    IF they had solar power, why would they need an electric power company's coal fired power? Or nuclear power? Or Hydro-power...or whatever power? Seems stupid.
     
  11. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    26,124
    Likes Received:
    1,360
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It does me a great deal of good because then I no longer have to pay the Corporations share of the tax bill.

    The other point made in the post is the other good. We have a choice. You have 10 dollars in your pocket and the Corp has 10 dollars in its pocket.
    There is a 10 dollar tax bill that needs to be paid. If you give up your 10 dollars to pay the tax the shareholder keeps an extra 10 bucks which they likely do not spend in the local economy (some not even living in the country). If the corp pays the tax and you keep your 10 dollars you spend it immediately in the local economy.

    This then helps the local economy and the economy of the US as a whole. Yes .... I know the argument from the other side . but the corp might spend some of their 10 dollars in the local economy too.

    True ... but ..for a publicly traded company that has any international exposure or one who pays dividends... that company will not spend and in some cases no where near 100% of that 10 dollars in the country never mind the local economy.

    Thus you have a net loss of money in the economy and a net movement of money from the workers and small business owners and some private companies to the Oligarchs/international financiers.

    This is one route a system of indentured slavery is being put in place. Not only have the Oligarchs managed to decrease wages and get rid of Jobs (via anti competitive mechanisms as described above) through mergers and outsourcing ... at the same time they are getting us to foot a greater share of the tax bill.

    These Oligarchs are gobbling up most things of value (again through anti competitive practices, regulation and so on) while keeping the small business from competing.

    Why so many have been fooled into thinking that it is in their best interest to pay the Oligarchs share of the taxes is in part a function of a huge propaganda effort on the part of the Oligarchs who own much and influence all of the MSM.
     
  12. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    44,957
    Likes Received:
    2,325
    Trophy Points:
    113
    i see we do not agree on the way corporate taxes work

    Corporations pass along all the costs of doing business to the consumers who buy their product or service - including taxes

    No matter how much you raise taxes you are really just taxing yourself
     
    Starjet likes this.
  13. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    26,124
    Likes Received:
    1,360
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I deleted the rest of your blubbering after this as none of it constituted non fallacious support of claim.

    Throwing insults and repetition of claim is not an valid argument for much.

    Any idiot can have an opinion ... but is it informed. Support your claim Mr. Big Mouth.
     
  14. Plus Ultra

    Plus Ultra Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2017
    Messages:
    1,223
    Likes Received:
    479
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Here's an interesting article on the antitrust issue with these "internet titans"; http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/17/open-markets-google-antitrust-barry-lynn-000523

    It is noted how the consumer as "product" and the fact the internet services are often free confuses the analysis. It is interesting this Barry Lynn headed a liberal Think Tank and I was unaware of the influence he has had on Democrat party policy development. Another significant aspect raised is the 'cozy' relationship between these internet titans and the Democrats, any review of antitrust in the internet could jeopardize a very significant revenue stream to the Democrats. The mere fact antitrust and Google (Amazon or Facebook) are simply associated in policy discussions considering review is significant. I agree the magnitude of the major internet businesses and their ever broadening scope does raise significant issues about competition in an environment they exert absolute control over.
     
  15. Starjet

    Starjet Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    I am assuming based on some of your posts you are pro anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws.

    Miss Ayn Rand: "The Antitrust laws—an unenforceable, uncompliable, unjudicable mess of contradictions—have for decades kept American businessmen under a silent, growing reign of terror. Yet these laws were created and, to this day, are upheld by the “conservatives,” as a grim monument to their lack of political philosophy, of economic knowledge and of any concern with principles. Under the Antitrust laws, a man becomes a criminal from the moment he goes into business, no matter what he does. For instance, if he charges prices which some bureaucrats judge as too high, he can be prosecuted for monopoly or for a successful “intent to monopolize”; if he charges prices lower than those of his competitors, he can be prosecuted for “unfair competition” or “restraint of trade”; and if he charges the same prices as his competitors, he can be prosecuted for “collusion” or “conspiracy.” There is only one difference in the legal treatment accorded to a criminal or to a businessman: the criminal’s rights are protected much more securely and objectively than the businessman’s."--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/antitrust_laws.html

    Miss Ayn Rand: "[There is only one] meaning and purpose these laws could have, whether their authors intended it or not: the penalizing of ability for being ability, the penalizing of success for being success, and the sacrifice of productive genius to the demands of envious mediocrity.--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/antitrust_laws.html

    Starjett: In football there are dirty players. They try to injure their betters in order to enhance their chances for their victories. They are punks. The same can be said of the supporters of anti-monopoly laws and anti-trust laws. If this country want's to get back on the road to virtue, goodness, morality, prosperity, and fair play, repeal these obscene anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws and lets show the world what the American inventors, producers, entrepreneurs, capitalists, and workers can do. I offer the coming explosion in space tourism as just one example.
     
  16. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    6,141
    Likes Received:
    795
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And right this marked starting is the core difference which I refute in content totally! Freedom of Speech is NOT a Wild Card to say what you want if it hurts the constitutional rights of others and / or contents crimes by law - point!
     
  17. Art_Allm

    Art_Allm Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,963
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No, Orwell was talking in his 1984 about a Commie dictatorship.
     
    TheGreatSatan likes this.
  18. TheGreatSatan

    TheGreatSatan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2009
    Messages:
    7,389
    Likes Received:
    2,190
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No way!!!

    BREAKING!!! Collectivist use assimilated drones in control of media outlets to silence political opposition. Nobody surprised...
     
  19. Starjet

    Starjet Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    If I can get someone to print my book, I can write whatever, no matter how vile, wild, or offensive. The free speech amendment is not a limitation on my right to free speech,. It is a prohibition against the government from stopping me. My objection to your use of the phrase "wild card' within the context you use it implies if someone finds a certain speech to be so wild as to be offensive, it can be prohibited. It can't The only thing that can be done is if its a book, no publisher can be forced by the government to publish it, or a store to carry it. If its a speech, no property owner can be forced by the government to allow you to speak, and so on with art, etc. It is not free speech in any of those case that would be the aspect of the law in question, it would be, who holds the property rights. This is why property rights are a sacred and fundamental principle of individual rights. Who owns the property, decides what happens on his property. Pornography is a good example.

    Miss Ayn Rand: "I want to state, for the record, my own view of what is called “hard-core” pornography. I regard it as unspeakably disgusting. I have not read any of the books or seen any of the current movies belonging to that category, and I do not intend ever to read or see them. The descriptions provided in legal cases, as well as the “modern” touches in “soft-core” productions, are sufficient grounds on which to form an opinion. The reason of my opinion is the opposite of the usual one: I do not regard sex as evil—I regard it as good, as one of the most important aspects of human life, too important to be made the subject of public anatomical display. But the issue here is not one’s view of sex. The issue is freedom of speech and of the press—i.e., the right to hold any view and to express it. )Italics and bold are mine).

    It is not very inspiring to fight for the freedom of the purveyors of pornography or their customers. But in the transition to statism, every infringement of human rights has begun with the suppression of a given right’s least attractive practitioners. In this case, the disgusting nature of the offenders makes it a good test of one’s loyalty to a principle"--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/free_speech.html

    In essence, what Miss Rand is saying is free speech is free speech, no matter what. This is what is known as fidelity to a principle, or what is often also called Integrity.

    If you wish to say that no one can be forced to hear, see, or view that which they find offensive, you're right. But that determination is going to depend on who has the property rights, and does not mean you can rip the shirt off a person walking down the street because you don't like what it says or shows. When it comes to free speech and government persecution of them, the right to free speech is absolute and the government must defend an individuals right to exercise it within the context of property rights.

     
  20. ibobbrob

    ibobbrob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2017
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    515
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Unless I am missing something, your comment is one of the dumbest and most irrelevant that has appeared on this forum. Catch my drift, big guy? And insulting to Jewish folk.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2017 at 8:00 AM

Share This Page